Jersey finally passes mandatory helmet law - for under 14 year olds

truffy wrote:

martib wrote:

When you have ensured that every driver in the UK, is driving as per the Highway Code, then we won't need to wear helmets. As an adult I can make my own decisions thank you.

It's a pity that posts cannot be down-voted, because I would surely down-vote this, and others that solely aim at 'ignorant drivers' as being the cause of cyclists' problems.

I don't disagree that there are a lot of ignorant drivers (and cyclists) out there.

But two cases from my own (direct and indirect) experience might highlight why cyclists need to look out for themselves, irrespective of 'ignorant drivers'!

CASE 1
A friend and I were cycling around the NL/DE border around 15 years ago. We remarked on the few locals who red with helmets. My friend and I were both wearing helmets. At one point my friend went across road-level tramlines at an angle, his wheel lodged and he fell off, hitting his head on the ground.

No drivers were involved in this incident!

Anyway, we got him to the local hospital. The doctor examined him and asked him if he was wearing a helmet. When he replied that he and been, the doctor replied that he thought that was the case...and that they get a lot of head injury cases among cyclists!

CASE 2
A well-respected scientist (i.e. not 'that stupid') was cycling with his sons. They were wearing helmets, but he was not (immmm!). One of his sons was in front and wobbled into his father's path, sending his father into a ditch. Broken head, death

And his son has to live with that for the rests of his life!

MORAL
Shit can (and probably will) happen. If you don't look out for yourself, no one else will. And if they're your kids, you have to look out for them.

My children ALWAYS wear helmets. And I do too, as much to set an example. What kind of parent would not want to do all they can to protect their children while they have fun?

I call bullshit. *Which* well-respected scientist? They are all traceable by virtue of being published authors.

truffy wrote:

My children ALWAYS wear helmets. And I do too, as much to set an example. What kind of parent would not want to do all they can to protect their children while they have fun?

This kind.

We want our kids to grow up with a healthy regard for risk and consequences. As such we let them climb things that could kill them if they fell (i.e. anything over about three meters), swim beyond their depth (i.e. deeper than 1.2m), and specifically ride their bikes fast enough that the energy dissipation design limits of any approved cycle helmet would be greatly exceeded.

Having been such grossly irresponsible parents the last 13 years, the only time one of our kids required hospitalisation and a general anaesthetic was for a hand injury sustained walking along a completely flat footpath in a cul-de-sac.

Please do keep your patronising, condescending passive-aggressive 'I'm a better parent than thou' BS for your own circle-jerk of hyper-safety-conscious helicopter parents.

The rest of us love our kids just as much as you do, we just don't buy into the same level of 'safety' hysteria.

KiwiMike wrote:

truffy wrote:

My children ALWAYS wear helmets. And I do too, as much to set an example. What kind of parent would not want to do all they can to protect their children while they have fun?

This kind.

We want our kids to grow up with a healthy regard for risk and consequences. As such we let them climb things that could kill them if they fell (i.e. anything over about three meters), swim beyond their depth (i.e. deeper than 1.2m), and specifically ride their bikes fast enough that the energy dissipation design limits of any approved cycle helmet would be greatly exceeded.

Having been such grossly irresponsible parents the last 13 years, the only time one of our kids required hospitalisation and a general anaesthetic was for a hand injury sustained walking along a completely flat footpath in a cul-de-sac.

Please do keep your patronising, condescending passive-aggressive 'I'm a better parent than thou' BS for your own circle-jerk of hyper-safety-conscious helicopter parents.

The rest of us love our kids just as much as you do, we just don't buy into the same level of 'safety' hysteria.

Hmm, when my 9 year old son lead climbs the walls at our climbing centre, I insist on making him use a rope in case he falls. I never realised I was being so over-protective. Next time I'll just send him up there with a "you fall, you die" - that'll motivate him!
Sarcasm aside, there's a balance between managing risk and being irresponsible. I'm sure that you are responsible parents, as am I, but we all apply different -and subjective - criteria to risk. Some Americans think it's fine for twelve year olds to play with firearms. Am I hyper-safety-conscious for not thinking that's a good thing?
We know that there's a risk from cycling. A 'safety hysteria' parent wouldn't permit them to do it. Allowing them to do it but mitigating some of the risk through the use of a helmet is simply precautionary.
Having said all that, I don't agree helmets should be mandatory even though personally I almost always wear one.

JeevesBath wrote:

Hmm, when my 9 year old son lead climbs the walls at our climbing centre, I insist on making him use a rope in case he falls. I never realised I was being so over-protective. Next time I'll just send him up there with a "you fall, you die" - that'll motivate him!

Sarcasm aside,

...glad you added that JeevesBath. Of course you understand the difference between an extreme sporting activity requiring significant skill, strength and equipment where improvement is predicated on pushing limits ('falling off') as opposed to, say, climbing an apple tree or playfort.

That said, I'm sure Truffly has called NSPCC on yo' ass - we've all seen the first 5 minutes of Cliffhanger, that so-called 'climbing equipment' isn't worth a pile of old rope.

Or maybe it is

martib wrote:

Deputy Green, whose nine year old son received a brain injury when he was knocked off his bike said: “

Ah the classic victim blaming, rather than tackle the cause because Politicians are too spineless to do take the more difficult options

Yes, I'm sure that he blamed his own son for being run over....
A tad insensitive thing to suggest don't you think?

Yeah, hardly victim blaming. More likely Deputy Green want's to do "something" "anything" to make some sense of the tragedy. It's not surprising he wouldn't be objective, it is surprising and depressing that a whole island went along with a flawed premise.

PS. I agree that CASE 2 is clearly rubbish, a story like that with such tragedy and pathos would have made the nationals and/or be quoted with a proper source and named victim by the pro-compulsion campaign till everyone was sick of it. The classic urban myth phrases give it away for what it is, hearsay repeating a fiction. Prove me wrong...

martib wrote:

Ah the classic victim blaming, rather than tackle the cause because Politicians are too spineless to do take the more difficult options
....When you have ensured that every driver in the UK, is driving as per the Highway Code, then we won't need to wear helmets. As an adult I can make my own decisions thank you.

Not trying to be argumentative, how would you propose that every driver be made to follow the Highway Code at all times?
Just to point out that having punishment for crimes doesn't always seem to work - just look at the number of murders, thefts etc that still happen despite there being laws in place to deal with these things and the number of people in prison who have broken them.
Everyone on here, myself included, is good at saying "someone should do something.." without actually knowing what should be done.
If you have an answer that doesn't involve turning the country into a Police state (more than it is already) or rebuilding the entire road network, then perhaps you should share it with us and run for Parliament yourself - I'm sure that everyone here would vote for you if you have a sensible/workable solution.